Posts Tagged ‘extra-territorial’

Q&A: Transnational Repression

June 14, 2024

On 12 June 2024, Human Rights Watch published a useful, short “questions-and-answers” document which outlines key questions on the global trend of transnational repression. 

Illustration of a map being used to bind someone's mouth
© 2024 Brian Stauffer for Human Rights Watch
  1. What is transnational repression?
  2. What tactics are used?
  3. Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?  
  4. Where is transnational repression happening? 
  5. Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?
  6. Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 
  7. What should be done? 

What is transnational repression?

The term “transnational repression” is increasingly used to refer to state actors reaching beyond their borders to suppress or stifle dissent by targeting human rights defenders, journalists, government critics and opposition activists, academics and others, in violation of their human rights. Particularly vulnerable are nationals or former nationals, members of diaspora communities and those living in exile. Many are asylum seekers or refugees in their place of exile, while others may be at risk of extradition or forced return. Back home, a person’s family members and friends may also be targeted, by way of retribution and with the aim of silencing a relative in exile or forcing their return.

Transnational repression can have far-reaching consequences, including a chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and association. While there is no formal legal definition, the framing of transnational repression, which encompasses a wide range of rights abuses, allows us to better understand it and propose victim-centered responses.

What tactics are used?

Documented tactics of transnational repression include killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, unlawful removals, online harassment, the use of digital surveillance including spyware, targeting of relatives, and the abuse of consular services.  Interpol’s Red Notice system has also been used as a tool of transnational repression, to facilitate unlawful extraditions. Interpol has made advances in improving its vetting systems, yet governments continue to abuse the Red Notice system by publishing unlawful notices seeking citizens who have fled abroad on spurious charges. This leaves targets vulnerable to arrest and return to their country of origin to be mistreated, even after they have fled to seek safety abroad.

Is transnational repression a new phenomenon?

No, the practice of governments violating human rights beyond their borders is not new. Civil society organizations have been documenting such abuses for decades. What is new, however, is the growing recognition of transnational repression as more than a collection of grave incidents, but also as an increasing phenomenon of global concern, requiring global responses. What is also new is the increasing access to and use of sophisticated technology to harass, threaten, surveil and track people no matter where they are. This makes the reach of transnational repression even more pervasive. 

Where is transnational repression happening? 

Transnational repression is a global phenomenon. Cases have been documented in countries and regions around the world. The use of technology such as spyware increases the reach of transnational repression, essentially turning an infected device, such as a mobile phone, into a portable surveillance tool, allowing targeted individuals to be spied on and tracked around the world. 

Do only “repressive” states commit transnational repression?

While many authoritarian states resort to repressive tactics beyond their own borders, any government that seeks to silence dissent by targeting critics abroad is committing transnational repression. Democratic governments have also contributed to cases of transnational repression, for example through the provision of spyware, collaborating with repressive governments to deny visas or facilitate returns, or relying upon flawed Interpol Red Notices that expose targeted individuals to risk.

Are steps being taken to recognize and address transnational repression? 

Increasingly, human rights organizations, UN experts and states are documenting and taking steps to address transnational repression.

For example, Freedom House has published several reports on transnational repression and maintains an online resource documenting incidents globally. Human Rights Watch has published reports, including one outlining cases of transnational repression globally and another focusing on Southeast Asia. Amnesty International has published a report on transnational repression in Europe. Many other nongovernmental organizations are increasingly producing research and reports on the issue. In her report on journalists in exile, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression dedicated a chapter to transnational repression. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights used the term in a June 2024 statement.

Certain governments are increasingly aware of the harms posed by transnational repression. Some are passing legislation to address the problem, while others are signing joint statements or raising transnational repression in international forums. However, government responses are often piecemeal, and a more cohesive and coordinated approach is needed. 

What should be done? 

Governments should speak out and condemn all cases of transnational repression, including by their friends and allies. They should take tangible steps to address transnational repression, including by adopting rights-respecting legal frameworks and policies to address it. Governments should put victims at the forefront of their response to these forms of repression. They should be particularly mindful of the risks and fears experienced by refugee and asylum communities. They should investigate and appropriately prosecute those responsible. Interpol should continue to improve vetting process by subjecting governments with a poor human rights record to more scrutiny when they submit Red Notices. Interpol should be transparent on which governments are continually abusing the Red Notice system, and limit their access to the database.  

At the international level, more can be done to integrate transnational repression within existing human rights reporting, and to mandate dedicated reporting on cases of transnational repression, trends, and steps needed to address it.

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/06/12/qa-transnational-repression

HRDs from Hong Kong fear arrest warrants and bounty

July 19, 2023

On 13 July 2023 the ITUC has protested to the Hong Kong authorities, the ILO and the UN over its deep concern about the escalation in the climate of fear, intimidation, arrests, arbitrary prosecutions, threats for the exercise of trade union rights and civil liberties in Hong Kong.

In particular, the disproportionate and unwarranted extra-territorial application of the National Security Law to target trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates by the Authorities of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) undermines its commitment to fulfil their international obligations.

The ITUC has called on the HKSAR Chief Executive Officer to respect and fully implement the conclusions and recommendations of ILO supervisory bodies and UN Human Rights bodies, in law and practice, including those regarding the National Security Law.

And he has been urged to release all those arrested and imprisoned for allegations related to the exercise of civil liberties including freedom of assembly, expression, press and association and those participating in pro-democracy activities.

On 4 July 2023, the HKSAR authorities announced, under the National Security Law, the issuance of arrest warrants against eight human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates and placed a bounty of HK$ one million on each of their heads.

ITUC Acting General Secretary Luc Triangle said: “We unequivocally deplore the HKSAR authorities’ criminalisation and securitisation of trade union and democracy-promoting activities. We consider it particularly egregious, especially given the risks to life and safety faced by trade unionists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy advocates around the world for their legitimate activities, that the HKSAR authorities approved and announced a bounty on the heads of these eight people for exercising their civil liberties or trade union rights.

“As a special administrative region of a member State of the ILO, China, the HKSAR is also obliged to respect and promote the fundamental principles and rights at work including freedom of association and treat with the utmost regard, the authoritative guidance of the ILO’s supervisory bodies.”

The ITUC letter of protest sets out the recent findings of the ILO and other UN bodies on the abuse of workers’ and trade union rights by the HKSAR. It says that seeking to apply the National Security Law in an extraterritorial manner and placing a bounty on the heads of pro-democracy advocates and human rights defenders for alleged crimes related to the exercise of civil liberties and trade union rights is an overreach and certainly not proportionate – its coercive and chilling effective is wide ranging. With the use of the National Security Law in this disproportionate and arbitrary manner, the HKSAR authorities are violating their obligations under the Constitution of the ILO and Convention 87.

https://www.ituc-csi.org/hong-kong-bounty-enhttps://www.ituc-csi.org/hong-kong-bounty-en